Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fiesler: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:37, 11 April 2024

Casey Fiesler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article ultimately does not reach the notability criteria for any points of WP:ACADEMIC. It best approaches point 7, which it seems to rely on, but even there it lacks the widespread coverage in independent sources usually necessary to establish notability.

As an associate professor, Fiesler doesn't currently hold a high-level position in academia or has demonstrably had a large scholarly influence over her subject area (human-centered computing). Five out of seven of the article's sources are primary ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) and the remaining two are local news ([6] [7]), which are outlined in WP:NOTABILITY as not being sufficient enough to demonstrate a subject's notability. The Slate article is itself written by Fiesler and as such can't be used to demonstrate notabiltiy here. Looking into Fiesler online, news articles about her are either those she authored, are exclusively local, or contain passing quotations/comments on her work, all of which cannot demonstrate notability per the specific criteria notes. GuardianH (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep That IP Watchdog source cannot go to notability since it's an interview. However, I'd treat Colorado Public Radio as qualifying for notability under WP:GNG. (By the way, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't foreclose local news; WP:ACADEMIC does for purposes of criterion 7.) Speaking of criterion 7, other independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources exist to document her public role on issues related to her academic research and thus notability: CBS News, CBC, Washington Post. There are other examples not as substantial as those, but I believe these should suffice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! ill update the article with these sources to improve it! User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't suffice. For starters, the CBS News source explicitly tagged itself as "LOCAL NEWS" right at the very top of the headline, and this is for a good reason – local news articles such as these cannot demonstrate subject notability. I don't have a WaPo subscription, but just taking a look at the article, she seems to be mentioned only in passing — minor, supplementary mentions also don't prove notability.^[1]

The CBC does focus on Fiesler, but this article is an exception to the rule — the majority of independent, reliable sources do not focus their entire articles on her. Just because one does, does not mean all do; a lot more than just this one is needed to prove the widespread coverage necessary to establish notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

Criterion 7 under NACADEMIC does not require the subject to be the primary focus of the article. That's a GNG requirement. Quote: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There is nothing there about how extensive the quotations need to be. And the WaPo item is not a mere passing quote:

Casey Fiesler, an information science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said she did not want to downplay any potential menace, but it was possible that students who had noticed increased fear of school violence among their peers were hoping to get attention. TikTok has moderators and guidelines that prohibit posts promoting or threatening violence, but Fiesler said such rules could be circumvented by savvy users. And she noted that TikTok’s accessibility — its algorithm means posts from people with relatively small followings on the platform have a “much higher” chance of being widely circulated — allows for “content that would otherwise maybe not spread as much [to] go viral.” .... Fiesler, the Colorado professor, offered a hypothetical scenario of a student pulling a fire alarm to skip an exam. It could be “the same kind of thing, just at a much larger scale,” she said.

Other examples of "frequently quoted in conventional media" include: New York Times, Slate x2, Inside Higher Ed, Science, The Verge, SSIR, CNN, Fast Company, plus WaPo and CBC. All taken, these indicate that she is frequently cited by perennially reliable national and global media outlets as an expert in her academic field. (Meanwhile, CBC, Denver Post, and Colorado Public Radio go toward GNG notability (which, unlike NACADEMIC, counts local news coverage as long as it's significant coverage, reliable, secondary, and independent). But there are plenty of sources to keep this article under NACADEMIC Criterion 7.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note: cbc is canada broadcasting company. her works have been in colorado and georgia. neither of these are local to canada. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, wait, you said CBS. that makes more sense. whoops. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It satisfies all criteria for GNG, and since it's not local news it also qualifies as coverage under NACADEMIC criterion 7. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in general the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can writw three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability.

as a professor her research career is still early stage, so her research output is not notable yet.

of note, about twelve hours before this, casey fiesler created a tiktok about this page indicating surprise that she had a page. this was before the deletion notice, so viewers do not know there is a deletion. however viewers may see this page.

her tiktok was her surprise at having a wikipedia article, but also her own experiences with nominations for deletion of her articles. she does not mention that her own article is up for deletion as she created the tiktok for her followers before this afd.

is there a process to correct the discussion and avoid any bias? ive seen it before on afd, when an article is proposed for deletion, in order to maintain balance. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can [write] three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability. — Okay, first of all, not all news sources are made the same. WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTABILITY specify independent, reliable sources to prove significant coverage. The bulk of the articles here are, as I've pointed out, not independent, and they also happen to be local, which itself can't prove notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a scientist in the field of human-centered computing, I thought I would add some context from my field to this conversation, and I would be happy to contribute to the article as useful. I think there are several good reasons to select Dr. Fiesler. On criterion 1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline), I would like to observe that Dr Fiesler has received 12 awards in computer science for "Best Paper" or "best Paper Honorable Mention," and that she was also awarded the NSF CAREER award, which is a significant monetary award selected by peers in the field to support promising early career scholars. On criterion (7), Dr. Fiesler is a leading science communicator on human-centered computing, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. White House invited her to attend the signing of the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Most importantly, under criterion 8 (editorship), Dr. Fiesler has served as the general chair of the CSCW conference— one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing— a position that is equivalent (for computer science) of chief editor of a journal. Dr. Fiesler's CSCW co-chair that year, Dr. Loren Terveen, quite rightly, also has a Wikipedia page. Rubberpaw (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few things to note. Notability on Wikipedia depends first and foremost on reliable sources. It would be better if you could provide a source for the 12 awards claim, a reliable source demonstrating the NSF Career award is significant enough to demonstrate it is a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,^[1] and when you cited the White House visit, you provided Instagram, which is not a reliable source. Even so, a visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.

As for her chairship, you also need a RS demonstrating that CSCW is one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing. Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees – Organizing Committee, Program Committee, Steering Committee — rather than chair of the entire organization itself. GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these questions. I hope the following responses are informative.

The index for the 12 awards claim is Dr. Fiesler's CV on file with the University of Colorado, which I fact-checked by querying the conference proceedings for those cases. To cite three examples, here is the 2023 CSCW best paper honorable mention list that names the "Chilling Takes" article that Dr. Fiesler was lead author on. Here is the proceedings for the 2015 conference paper on understanding copyright in online creative communities that received a best paper award, as indicated by the award cup icon. Here is the best paper list from SIGCSE 2018, which also cites awards received by Fiesler's research.
NSF CAREER: According to this guide by the MIT Office of the Vice President for Research, "The CAREER program is a NSF-wide activity that provides 5 year awards to tenure-track Assistant Professors, and is one of the most popular and prestigious opportunities offered by the Foundation."
"Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees" - not all academic journals and conferences have a single head. This conference, which operates at a very high volume, has multiple heads, as is common in computer science, where there is a particularly high volume of scholarship. These are necessary conditions of such a high productivity, comparatively large field, with outsized influence in science.
"A visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC." In this case, I think it's notable because the White House was deliberately marking what they considered to be a first, historic step in the regulation of artificial intelligence in the US and internationally by inviting notable scientists, advocates, and policy experts.

Rubberpaw (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:NACADEMIC

Comment: I've added additional sources to the article. I am not sure which ones are the best for indicating independence. However, apparently Casey Fiesler maintains a press page. https://caseyfiesler.com/press/

Of note, the first category, "OpEds and Popular Press Articles", probably cannot be used. these are self-written and are not independent.

However, Research Coverage, Press Mentions & Quotes, and others seem interesting and worth including. I don't want to overload the page with citations, but I feel we can pick a few that are appropriate to give additional detail and verification as necessary. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone and removed the self-sourced article, and replaced it with what I hope is an appropriate source. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law, Technology, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick rummage through the sources in the article and above plus a Google News search suggest to me that a) there's enough material to form a functional short article about her, and b) some people are going to say, "Who is this Casey Fiesler?" and turn to us for a trusted answer. Additionally, and I hope this is just coincidence, I think it's a very bad look for Wikipedia when somebody records a popular video about quitting Wikipedia due to retaliatory deletions from a disgruntled editor and then suddenly their Wikipedia article is up for deletion. William Pietri (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For sake of transparency, and to avoid any issues, I've attached the canvassing template on here.

The TikTok by Fiesler might have caused some folks to show up.

I definitely agree that we should keep this article and I welcome folks' input, but Wikipedia rules are rules, just in case. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, is there a better template? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah found one. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nomination claim that the subject is far from WP:PROF notability. Her citation counts on Google Scholar (both the many triple-digit-citation works and the strong upward trajectory on her annual citations) look good enough for #C1 to me. And I think there's significant independent coverage of her work with Barbie on CPR [8] and on her studies of social media in the Denver Post [9], enough to make a plausible case for WP:GNG notability (as well as maybe PROF#C7) as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a good case for passing WP:PROF#C1 and also WP:PROF#C7, as argued just above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:PROF#C1 (scholarly impact), WP:PROF#C2 (NSF CAREER award) and WP:PROF#C7 (infuential as a public scholar). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Generally, associate professors have not achieved the level of career notability that one looks for in deciding whether it's time for a Wikipedia page about them. That's the "weak" part of my thinking. Like David and XOReaster, I do see that the citation record is meeting WP:PROF#C1. In addition, like David I think WP:GNG and/or WP:PROF#C1 are met by the news coverage. Qflib (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

[2] WP:NACADEMIC

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 *'''Keep''' There's a good case for passing [[WP:PROF#C1]] and also [[WP:PROF#C7]], as argued just above. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Appears to meet [[WP:PROF#C1]] (scholarly impact), [[WP:PROF#C2]] (NSF CAREER award) and [[WP:PROF#C7]] (infuential as a public scholar). --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b><span style="color:black">Bim</span>]] <sup style="color:black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</sup> 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Weak keep'''. Generally, associate professors have not achieved the level of career notability that one looks for in deciding whether it's time for a Wikipedia page about them. That's the "weak" part of my thinking. Like David and XOReaster, I do see that the citation record is meeting [[WP:PROF#C1]]. In addition, like David I think [[WP:GNG]] and/or [[WP:PROF#C1]] are met by the news coverage. [[User:Qflib|Qflib]] ([[User talk:Qflib|talk]]) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)